Former/Current Employees, Customers Say Best Buy’s Goal Was To Confuse

Written by Evan Schuman
March 9th, 2007

As Connecticut state investigators continue to look into the Best Buy dual Web site situation, former Best Buy employees and customers are telling stories that question how accidental some of the confusion was.

The controversy stems from Best Buy giving employees access to two different—but visually identical—sites for them to show customers. One of the sites was the public Web site and the other was a full replica of that site but with in-store (typically higher) pricing.

The intent behind the confusion of the two sites is crucial to the investigation being conducted by the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office, according to a law enforcement source within that department. Were the two sites created as legitimate tools for store associates and the confusion merely a result of insufficient training or was it a deliberate attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the public?

The fraud issue comes into play if Best Buy employees showed the in-store site to customers and told them that it was the public Web site, in an attempt to get them to back off a price-matching request. Best Buy’s policy is that they have to match the price of any sale unless it’s labeled a Web-only deal.

Best Buy officially has said that the intra-store site and the public Web site were both launched many years ago and that, at the time of launch, it made sense to have them look identical to save on design costs. Those executives argue that any confusion of the two sites—either in the eyes of customers or employees—is unintentional and there was never any intent to deceive.

Several Best Buy employees, former employees and Best Buy customers—most of whom asked that they not be quoted by name—said communications inside Best Buy stores were clearly very different.

The first hint as to intent comes from the site appearing on employee screens simply labeled “,” according to four sources. If the site was indeed designed to show in-store—as opposed to online—pricing, wouldn’t it have been labeled in a way to reflect that?

The stories that most told spoke of senior store managers being aware of the two sites and their purposes, but that this information was typically not shared with rank-and-file employees. It’s not as though they were told that the intra-store site was identical to the public Web site, but the lack of information—coupled with the site’s name—prompted them to assume it was the public site.

What makes this case so challenging is that if frauds and deceptions happened, they have done so in a way that makes it very hard to prove and potentially even harder to civilly or criminally prosecute any one individual.

The chain having multiple prices is not the issue and, indeed, is a common and accepted practice. Certainly having a system inside the store—a kiosk—that shows employees and/or customers the store (as opposed to the Web) pricing is also not a problem.

The problem occurs when a customer is told that they are being shown the Web site when in reality they are being shown an intrastore site and that they are being told the wrong for the purpose of tricking them into paying a higher price.

Was that done in the Best Buy case? Even Best Buy concedes it was. The question is one of intent and that’s where things get interesting. If a fraud was indeed committed, who specifically did it?

The scenario consistently painted by employees, former employees and customers is one where an employee shows the customer the wrong site. But in many—although not all—of the cases, the employee is not aware at the time that it’s the wrong site, as they haven’t been trained on it.

Without the training, isn’t an employee likely to think that a link labeled “” is going to bring up the Web site, especially if it brings up something that looks identical to the public Web site? Indeed, without training, it’s hard to imagine the unbriefed store associate could have reasonably concluded anything else.

Without that knowledge, that associate would have had no criminal intent to defraud and is therefore very hard to legally punish. The supervisor (or manager a few levels up) who didn’t train that employee properly is the next link. Why did that manager not adequately train that employee? Was it forgetfulness? Was it inadvertent? Or was it some sort of a deliberate plan to defraud?

Assuming the worst—namely that the manager did have the criminal intent to defraud—what bad actions did that manager actually commit? He/she merely failed to properly brief an employee. The worst that could be said would be that the manager chose to not have the employee briefed on the hope that the employee would jump to the conclusion that the intrastore set was the Web site and would unknowingly—but convincingly—trick the customer into backing off their pricematch request.

If this fraud happened, it’s been set up to cleverly split what lawyers like to call mens rea—criminal intent—from actus reus—the guilty act. Prosecutions are much more difficult that way.

The stories told by the employees, former employees and customers, however, are so similar and come from so many diverse locations that it’s either a series of remarkable coincidences or something more sinister.

One salesperson—who stopped working at Best Buy late last summer and was interviewed Thursday—said the confusion was quite deliberate. “Managers and other employees would often encourage us to use the higher price on the internal Web site. It was common knowledge to most people working there that there were two versions of I was one of the only sales people to consistently find a computer connected to the real internet and price match using that,” he said.

“A few employees actually encouraged others to show customers the intra-store Web site and use that price. All the computers readily accessible on the sales floor were equipped with the intrastore site only and external Web access locked,” the former employee continued. “Once there was a computer in the center of the store that had access to the outside internet and, one day, it was mysteriously removed. Now I realize it was probably because it had access to the real”

One current Best Buy employee told a very similar tale. “I have been with Best Buy for about ten months now and not one person has mentioned to me that there are two completely different prices on the actual Web and our kiosks. I have even personally encountered this problem with a customer who came in wanting to buy a MP3 player, but said it was a different price online. I did like the other employees described in your report and showed him to the kiosk and the price came up the same as in the store,” the current Best Buy employee said. “The customer said he knew for sure it was about twenty dollars cheaper online and said he’d go home and order it. I told him I was sorry for the confusion and he left. About thirty minutes later, he returned with a print out showing the price and also an online receipt for a ‘store pick-up.’ Being curious, I asked to look at the print out and it had nothing saying it was ‘online only.’ No one in my ten months had ever said to me that the kiosk price reflected the in-store price.”

That employee surveyed other employees and none of them had been told the sites were different. “So we then talked to the product processing leader and she said she did know about it and she said that it is like that to keep customers from price matching,” the employee said. Explaining why he was willing to discuss this, the employee said “Being an employee of Best Buy myself, I hate to see higher-ups placing blame on sales floor associates when it’s our higher ups withholding information. Management needs to be held responsible and not the 18-30 year old kids, like myself, who are just doing what we were told.”

In some cases, it’s Best Buy’s customers who pushed Best Buy employees and their managers to speak candidly about the situation. After one consumer suspected that the “public Web site” he was shown to refute a claimed price match was something else, he asked to speak to a senior manager and was introduced to the store’s operations manager.

That manager “first tried to tell me that the site in-store was the real Web site, but it had a 24-hour cache so pricing could be a day stale. I then told her I spoke with Jill earlier at their complaint line who told me straight out that there is an intranet site within the store but all employees are trained not to show it to the public. She chuckled and responded, ‘Oh, she’s not supposed to tell you that.’ I then pointed to the employee who mislead me the day before—and who was sitting 20 yards to my left—and asked (the operations manager): ‘Has this employee even been trained to the intra-store site and that it is different than the Internet?’ She responded ‘no.’ Then she said ‘I ain’t gonna lie about that.’ She then admitted that no employee below herself has knowledge of the intranet.”

Note: Some people outside Best Buy corporate have referred to the intra-store site—referred to by Best Buy corporate as simply “kiosk”—as an intranet site. The site was designed for employees to show to consumers visiting the stores, so whether it’s a true intranet—intended only for a closed group of employees, distributors, suppliers and/or other business partners—is unclear.

One former employee who did agree to be quoted by name—Micah Hymer—spent three years working at Best Buy’s Fort Worth, Texas, location, leaving last year and he echoed the theme that employees were simply not told that the “” on the system was not in fact the Web site.

“Employees were never trained to use that site and it was never mentioned to anyone that there was even multiple sites with different prices,” Hymer said. “Supervisors and sales managers would occasionally mention using the Web site in a sinister-type way to boost sales. The employee—instead of price-matching with the online price—could walk over more gullible customers and log into the internal to show the technology-illiterate customer that prices were indeed $199.99. Most customers after seeing this would think they had read the price wrong from their home or think it was a limited time special they had missed.”

Hymer stressed that this was not a formal effort and was certainly a stealth one. “This tactic was never taught by Best Buy management and was only ever discussed by desperate sales managers or supervisors looking to increase revenue on a slow day. That’s why most regular employees probably aren’t even aware of its existence as any manager aware of this ‘trick’ probably would not teach it to anyone but the better salesman because they don’t want to attract negative attention from district management.”


3 Comments | Read Former/Current Employees, Customers Say Best Buy’s Goal Was To Confuse

  1. Mark Eaton Says:

    This situation is just another example of big-box retailers squeezing out the last buck from every one of their Customers. Made in America has become Assembled in America. They hire kids who are unable to count change. They falsify timecards so that teens work more hours than allowed. They insist on employees be dressed up, at their department work stations, cashed into the system BEFORE their shift start-time, meaning that they had to punch in 15 or 20 minutes before their shift and were not paid for that time (actually..overtime). It just goes on and on. I have no respect for these big-box managers or they Corporate leaders. It’s just sad….
    Mark in Massachusetts

  2. Paul Shuman Says:

    BestBuy needs a serious fine for deliberately inconveniencing customers.

  3. Jeff Says:

    Beautiful… It will be great to see this unfold because Best Buy employees have little to no loyalty to their employer – what Best Buy created and deserves.

    Sarbanes Oxley was created to make personally accountable c-level execitives for the actions of their employees and is the reason for the collapse of such Companies as Enron and MCI Worldcom. The act was designed to make accountable upper management for the actions of their employees (initially for transparent and true accounting).

    In every article thus far there has been no clear design purpose for the intranet described. Why is the intranet on every computer in the store? Why is it called — their website?? If a customer has driven to a brick and mortar location, why would they want to look at a kiosk when they came to the store to see and feel the actual product? How does the kiosk help the customer understand what products are available in store BETTER than the store itself?

    I will make one concession to Best Buy. It is possible when the intranet was conceived, its original concept was to facilitate real-time regional pricing, as they currently practice. Lord knows how disorganized stores can be about shelf pricing, abd Worst Buy is no exception.

    However with this said there is no excuse for Best Buy to understand immediately that using the exact site for the intranet as the internet was going to create confusion for the majority of its customers.

    If Whirlpool was to design a dishwasher that cut off your hand if you did not close it properly, no one will argue that a lawsuit would ensue and whirlpool would pay out because they should have known better. Best Buy also should have known better. It is this obvious.

    This is where Sarbanes Oxley comes into play. Upper management and the design team for the intranet were aware that confusion would be caused at least. Best Buy as a public company has the responsibility to act in an ethical manner and to take every step to ensure their employees do as well.

    Best Buy corporate management also clearly understands that by giving their GMs of every store bonuses based on store profitablity (which I have no doubt they do…) creates the best interest of the GM to mislead the public as much as possible to avoid sale pricing.

    For Best Buy not to have specific training protocol in place to educate employees what the intranet site called “” is on their computer/register is inexcusable. This is blatent intent to fraud the public.

    In my experience, as mentioned in this article, the management of a Best Buy store admitted to me that they have full knowledge of the intranet and the price disparities. How does the operations manager and general manager of each store learn about the two sites? Of course someone has to train them, this is again obvious. It is not coincidence that every GM of every store has awareness.

    Moving down the chain for the management to have knowledge that an option on every in-store computer (on their pull-down menu) is called “” and is not infact is not confusion – it is a lie. For management not to train its staff not to use this for pricing matching is intent to fraud.

    There are emails between GMs and corporate on this issue and hopefully they will be uncovered. This issue is too obvious and widespread. GMs must have joked about this with each other for years – someone has slipped somewhere and I sincerely hope this investigation uncovers everything.

    Please keep on this story, thanks for bringing awareness to the public, and may justice prevail!

    Power to the people :)


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.